SUBJECTIVE VS OBJECTIVE UNIVERSE

By William Markiewicz

Subjective Universe

The subjective realm is, of course, that to which our soul says 'yes' or 'no.' The situation of "yes" rhymes with "happiness" which needs no long explanation. Even austere Buddhism says that desire is not bad in itself and is part of our natural fabric. On the other hand the "no" to pain, to danger, requires immediate attention and drastic change. Sometimes a whip is needed to make us adjust to objective reality. For powerful inclinations, the whip works better than understanding because stronger and abrupt pain successfully replaces weaker pain.

In a subjectively rich universe, happiness, like health, is taken for granted and doesn't need deep analysis. But in a subjectively poor universe, first comes despair, then for the sake of survival, the 'whip' of obligation. It may be acceptance, which is a 'moderate' (?) form of whip. This acceptance is probably intellectually the most difficult to achieve. Sometimes it means perpetuation of being/not being, Nietzsche's abyss. It's despair with a lesser grip, a dull return to the vegetative world, like Alzheimer's without brain degeneration. Any extreme imprisonment leads to this state. It could be an isolation cell, or being paralyzed, confined to bed.

Objective Universe

To the objective world belong, of course, our understanding of the objective situation and resulting action. What is less obvious is that, in the same category belong -- our dreams.

I'll explain myself: The dream expresses itself to and through our intellect, while the roots of our dreams are absolutely non-intellectual, coming from our exterior links which will remain a mystery forever. In some genetic expressions our brains can only be a mirror reflecting reactions at a sub-mental level where we don't have even the slightest mental access. It's for instance like dreaming that you walk down some unknown street looking for a repair shop for the broken ski you carry, -- when you don't even have skis and never had the least interest in the sport. Or, another example of the non cause-effect relationship: Somebody tries to prove to you that "You like carrots because your great great grandfather was kicked by a horse 200 years ago." Nobody can prove yes or no, only the attainment of the Ultimate Theory may perhaps shed light on the how, what and why. For the time being all we can do is dream, eat carrots, write, paint, or not ...

Another paradoxical relation between the objective world and us would be through ... magic. After all, whatever isn't related to our daily reality and intellectual knowledge may seem magical to uninitiated minds. "Magic" began with Einstein and his theory of relativity where time is not time and space is not space. This universe is accessible to the brain only through mathematical formulas, not through understanding. The Universe of Quanta goes in the same direction, for instance, with the "Schroediger's Cat" theory that the observer acts on the observed, and also in what Neils Bohr said at the end of one University conference: "Ladies and gentlemen, I don't understand a single word I have told you." A magician could use this kind of language. I don't remember the scientific term for the theory embraced by some scientists, (synchronicity?) in which a laboratory experiment on the animals in one part of the world, influences animals of the same species in a laboratory in another part of the world. Any philosophy, any theory we have no way of understanding but which can somehow be proved either mathematically or through experience, can be called, "magic." Maybe the distance between what can be done and proved or not, in the future will be much reduced and the application for the term 'magic' will be reduced as well.



Back to the index of the Vagabond
© Copyright 2001 E-mail to: William Markiewicz